(US) Flexitarian Commenters Set Me Straight on Meat (Or Lack Thereof)

[U.S. News & World Report - opinion - comments at full story link] On Wednesday, I wrote about an article in Audubon Magazine which revealed that, to halt

Message 1 of 1
, Jan 9, 2009

0 Attachment

[U.S. News & World Report - opinion - comments at full story link]

On Wednesday, I wrote about an article in Audubon Magazine which
revealed that, to halt climate change, we needed to eat about a
quarter of the amount of meat we currently consume each day. A
flexitarian diet, as we've all heard before, is better for our planet
and our waistlines, but the term "flexitarian" is so all-encompassing
that anything goes, really. Now climate-change flexitarians have
something to aim for - no more than 3.1 ounces of meat per day, no
more than half of that being red meat.

But many of the commenters, both here and on other sites that linked
to the post (thanks, Lifehacker and Serious Eats), disagreed with my
wording, and approach. If someone wants to cut back on meat, rather
than thinking about maintaining a certain day's quota, it's better to
go vegetarian for breakfast and lunch, or breakfast and dinner, or
only eat meat when you're at restaurants or with friends. Then, after
a few vegetarian meals, you're free to indulge in that burger, or
juicy piece of chicken. Creating boundaries, rather than measuring
portions, is the way to go, I'm told.